Size 16 mannequin good or bad?

Good, bad, or completely irrelevant and just a stunt? 

«1

Comments

  • The current mannequins in use bear absolutely no relationship to an actual woman they may as we'll put the outfits on a stuffed goat. So on one level it's an improvement, but better still to do a representation of a standard healthy woman without the giraffe necks and flamingo legs of the current monstrosities. Just have a look at the back of them at how much fabric is pinned in to enable even the smallest size to fit.

  • I think having the clothes on a more "womanly" figure will at least give a more realitic idea of what it looks like. although I doubt they will be anything like a normal womans figure anyway!

  • It didn't look like a size 16.  It had skinny arms.

  • I have no idea what size 16 means.

  • The larger lady.
  • Apparently not - size 16 is "average" hence the choice.

    If it helps Debenhams sell more clothes because they give a better idea of what they'll look like on a significant customer demographic it makes sound business sense.

  • But what Monique says is also true - you can't get the right drape on a mannequin that has no real curves so the clothes are always pinned.

  • I would like to see manniquins in various shapes that actually reflected the variation in people.  I ahve no problem with them all being a 'model' size 16, but how about ahving some cut for straight figures and some for curvey.  It would give me a better idea of how the outfit would look on me, rather than me taking one look and thinking 'Naw, my hips wouldn't fit in that'

  • Short and tall would be good too..... but it wouldn't  happen!

  • God yes. You could have colour-coded fingernails or something for different shapes and sizes e.g. red = Penelope Pearshaped, blue = Belinda Busty, orange = Lizzy Littlelegs etc

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    Bat wings and thick ankles should get closer to reality.

    However, for lady manniquins...

  • SuperCaz wrote (see)

    I would like to see manniquins in various shapes that actually reflected the variation in people.  I ahve no problem with them all being a 'model' size 16, but how about ahving some cut for straight figures and some for curvey.  It would give me a better idea of how the outfit would look on me, rather than me taking one look and thinking 'Naw, my hips wouldn't fit in that'

    Agreed. 

    As for JB - bad form, matey.  Very bad form.

  • Why?

  • "The larger lady"

     

    Who is he, or anyone else for that matter, to decide what constitutes a "larger lady", with the associated connotations? Especially without any hint of appreciation of those connotations.

  • I always thought size 16 was larger than size 8. Reel your neck in.
  • Ease yer springs. 

    You assumed sz16 is larger than sz8.  You've clearly never shopped for female clothes.  Size depends on store. 

  • Cinders wrote (see)

    It didn't look like a size 16.  It had skinny arms.

    I am a  size16 and have skinny arms.....

    well sometimes a smaller size in posher stores.also depends on the cut etc.........so varies.

    I think i am kinda average like most women whatever size I would like to be smaller.

    so i think they should have a vriety of sizes and shapes...........the ones they have now are just pointless......

  • Yes I aspire to be like Sophie Dahl and Nigella, sadly I wasn't born into a rich family so can't spend my days fiddling about with cakes. As a runner I certainly wouldn't want to have the body shapes of either of them. I think men should use Cillian Murphy as a role model, well average men, not sure who the below average should aspire to.
  • sirzy wrote (see)

    I think having the clothes on a more "womanly" figure will at least give a more realitic idea of what it looks like...

     

    That is not going to increase sales, though!  A realistic idea of what something will look like will often put people off.  Well me, anyway!

     

    Crazy Diamond wrote (see)

    Ease yer springs. 

    You assumed sz16 is larger than sz8.  You've clearly never shopped for female clothes.  Size depends on store. 

    But a size 16 IS larger than a size 8 - even with vanity sizing.

  • I've bought a sz18 in the past to fit a sz10 shape.  That wasn't vanity, it was Primark.

  • OK, but it is the norm that a size 16 will be larger than a size 8.

    I don't think JB wasn't out of line in saying so, it's the usual way of sizing and which most manufacturer use.

  • Monique wrote (see)

    The current mannequins in use bear absolutely no relationship to an actual woman they may as we'll put the outfits on a stuffed goat. 

    image

    I think in certain parts of Wales, goats and sheep ARE dressed in women's clothes, so that's perhaps not as outlandish as it may seem.

    *hides from Seren*

  • Ooh, I think you've pulled, velloo!

  • Not unless Flob aspires to be like Cillian Murphy (apparently) image

  • I was in the Elephant and Castle shopping centre yesterday. 

    There are some stalls selling crap, but one selling underwear had unusual mannequins, clearly modelled on the figures of women such as Jordan and Jodie Marsh!

  • I think it's a good idea, but whether it will take off or not is another thing.  Fashion Designers need to radically change their ideals about women's figures and how they design clothes as the majority of women are not size 0 or 2, 4, 6, 8 etc and until they open their fairy dust and sequin coated eyes and actually look around at the female population properly (in terms of body shape) we will never have acceptance that its actually ok to be a size 16 or bigger.

    For what it's worth Marilyn Monroe was a size 16 and was way more sexy and attractive than the skinny catwalk models that designers insist on using.

  • I think you're right in terms of shape Beth - whatever their size, women largely go in and out, not straight up and down.

    And what's with the length of the arms in so many garments (regardelss of size) do they think we are all orangutans? image

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.